Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Recommended Posts

On 3/6/2021 at 9:22 AM, afx said:

Chip is very talented but I don't' care for most of his designs but I like this one. A little offset in the wheels would look better IMHO.  They look too donk-ish for my liking.

I'm the last person in the universe to comment on muscle cars of the 70s, just not my thing....but MAN those wheels are a distraction!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My very favorite Mustang is the 1973 Mach I, in bright yellow, with black stripes. So, this rendition doesn't bother me too much, except for the wheels and the taillights. If I had to choose GM lights, early Firebird, or '66-'67 GTO units would have looked better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bucky said:

My very favorite Mustang is the 1973 Mach I, in bright yellow, with black stripes. So, this rendition doesn't bother me too much, except for the wheels and the taillights. If I had to choose GM lights, early Firebird, or '66-'67 GTO units would have looked better!

The 69 Firebird lights would have fit perfectly and been less identifiable!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lownslow said:

the wheels need offset and the taillights dont cut it

I agree. The cars has nice lines but those wheels do not compliment them. And why in the world would anyone think Camaro tail lights would be accepted by any Mustang fan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love the grill, not a fan of the driving lights. It needs a stock front spoiler.

Well, I am in line with most. Wheels are garbage, the tail lights have to go, Sits too high and I hate the extended rocker panel.

I really hate the way he stretched and widened the top of the rear quarters. Makes it to square.

Kind of makes you think about the Revell 71 Mustang.. A second repackage already planned.

Edited by Sledsel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2021 at 9:36 PM, sfhess said:

71 LTD taillights would be a better fit.

No, the 72's would be better. 71's are too small. Personally, 1969 Monterey lights would have worked well, and hardly anyone would know where they came from.  1970 Mercury Monterey 2 door | Lincoln mercury, Edsel ford, Classic cars

Edited by Sledsel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Sledsel said:

Love the grill, not a fan of the driving lights. It needs a stock front spoiler.

Well, I am in line with most. Wheels are garbage, the tail lights have to go, Sits too high and I hate the extended rocker panel.

I really hate the way he stretched and widened the top of the rear quarters. Makes it to square.

Kind of makes you think about the Revell 71 Mustang.. A second repackage already planned.

What repackage by Revell of a 71 Mustang are you talking about?  Despite the Sunny/AMT Cobra reissue debacle, if there is a 71 Mustang from Revell  I would hope it’s not the Palmer/Testors thing or another rehashed old AMT/MPC kit.  All of the reissued and sometime slightly improved  kits are just putting lipstick on a pig.  If Round 2 could sell a bunch of the 007 kits I would surely hope an ALL NEW 71 Mustang kit would blow all previous versions out of the water and put the older kits to shame with an actual 429CJ with a C6 and a REAL Boss 351 engine with a Hurst four speed and not a Windsor wannabe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sledsel said:

No, the 72's would be better. 71's are too small. Personally, 1969 Monterey lights would have worked well, and hardly anyone would know where they came from.  1970 Mercury Monterey 2 door | Lincoln mercury, Edsel ford, Classic cars

Problem is, they look too much like 68 Camaro lights when not in a Mercury. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, vamach1 said:

What repackage by Revell of a 71 Mustang are you talking about?  Despite the Sunny/AMT Cobra reissue debacle, if there is a 71 Mustang from Revell  I would hope it’s not the Palmer/Testors thing or another rehashed old AMT/MPC kit.  All of the reissued and sometime slightly improved  kits are just putting lipstick on a pig.  If Round 2 could sell a bunch of the 007 kits I would surely hope an ALL NEW 71 Mustang kit would blow all previous versions out of the water and put the older kits to shame with an actual 429CJ with a C6 and a REAL Boss 351 engine with a Hurst four speed and not a Windsor wannabe.

Revell has been measuring a 71 Mustang for a new tool.... With the Foose car I already see a repackage after the original kit comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I commented before about the rocker panel lengthening.. Now the body is too fat like the current Challenger. 

mf10.jpg

 

The wheels had to have the positive offset, the Foose car sits on a 2010 Mustang chassis. Looks like they mover the front wheel openings forward also.

Note: if you bump something, the fenders and hood will hit before the bumper

 

Edited by Sledsel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sledsel said:

Revell has been measuring a 71 Mustang for a new tool.... With the Foose car I already see a repackage after the original kit comes out.

That would be interesting for sure but requires some major mold changes or just some new box art.  It would actually be pretty easy to build the Foose version now with that Testors thing and some kit bashing.  Without major changes to a new tooling I’m thinking more along the lines of a 73 Eleanor, 71 Boss 351, 72  and a Mach1 (preferably NOT molded in red) as doable with a minimum of changes IF the differences are though out ahead and factored into the first release.  For example, including the 351 and 429 engines, different grilles and hoods and bumpers and that would cover most everything.  The decals would be they key as they would be different for say the 007 Mach1 vs. a Boss  351 vs. Eleanor which could be “held back” in order to release the different versions.  As I showed with the AMT/MPC 007 kit - more than half the parts are not even needed to build it but of course it’s still lacking a completely correct engine and molding it in red only benefited someone that does not paint a model which isn’t anyone on this board or 90% of model builders.

Pictures of my car which I have owned eight years longer than I’ve been married.  I bought it in 1981.

87E3C177-0D82-4E0C-89D0-90F52591CC81.png

4A884B21-1B68-40E0-BF69-78F0ABD810F2.jpeg

Edited by vamach1
My car
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, cobraman said:

I really like your Mustang. If and when I get around to building the 1/12 Mustang I have I might need to paint it yellow !

Thanks.  I have two of the Otaki kits but like many other kits there are still in the box awaiting motivation and the time to build them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, webestang said:

MASSIVE Mustang fan here but I'd rather have a replica of Eleanor than that Foose Mach 1.......

Same here.  The question is which licensing would cost less as I’m sure both Ms. Hilacki and Mr. Foose would want a royalty fee. ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sledsel said:

No, the 72's would be better. 71's are too small. Personally, 1969 Monterey lights would have worked well, and hardly anyone would know where they came from.  1970 Mercury Monterey 2 door | Lincoln mercury, Edsel ford, Classic cars

That's a 70 Monterey BTW.  Here's a 69:

Image result for 69 mercury monterey

 

Maybe 69-70 Cougar taillights, without the fins?

Image result for 69 cougar

See the source image

Edited by sfhess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Oldcarfan27 said:

Or even the ever popular Shelby/Tbird lights!

resto@park-REAR.gif.df2466dfd08aa41906413f66a053ff12.gif

That proves that rectangular tail lights don't work either. At least the Camaro tail lights fit the shape of the tail panel. I'd pick the Camaro tail lights over those any time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...